John Lennon as Genius... Stop the B.S.!

Fer cryin’ out loud, when in hell will someone pull the plug and stop all this hagiographic psychobabble about John Lennon being a devine-like gift to humanity? Fine, the man wrote some spirited songs and had a wife that blows, but what’s with this relentless, self-indulgent, delusional orgy of god worship? If I hear one more burn out whining, “he was so brilliant, he redefined an entire century and changed the face of music forever and ever!!!” I am going to hurl pea soup like a bazooka.

Actually, I think you wanted the pit for this, not IMHO. Some people might actually like him.

Tho, In my opinion, they stunk. :slight_smile:

Lennon was an innocent and as such had a huge influence on his century. If there is a genius for innocence, he had it. It’s silly to canonize him, but he was an inspiring presence in the world for a lot of people, always ready to try something new and naive.
I always liked Yoko, too, though evidence seems to show she can be pretty calculating.

John Lennon was a fine musician and a gifted poet who rose to prominence during a time of social upheaval. His legacy is inextricably linked with that period as both a catalyst and a casualty. Furthermore, he turned his back on public life completely for five years to raise his son, afterwhich in a flash of optimism he began a comback with an album which reflected his matured tastes. This album was no less inspirational than any of his others. Then he was cold-bloodedly murdered just as a new generation was getting to know his music.

That is the short version of why people “canonize” the man.

On the other hand. Bite me.

When “tsunamisurfer’s Greatest Hits” goes platinum, maybe I’ll give two turds about your opinion.

surfer, you’ve got to understand; it’s just like the adoration you get with The Grateful Dead and Phish. Devotees of John Lennon are just too damn stoned to make sense of the world. In that state of mind, Zamfir playing the panpipes with Frankie Goes to Hollywood would bestow a feeling of “divine-like” bliss.

What is the relevance of that??? Madonna has gone platinum, as has Brittany Spears, Vanilla Ice, Snoop Dog, Garth Brooks, and a whole rack of other non-talents.

Lennon espoused pacifism. Nothing remarkable there. Turned his back on commercialism after having racked up $400 million in personal fortune–so would I. Wrote a cheesy tune “All We Are Saying…” Go back to yo reefer, Jackie Boy.

P.S. And I’m being serious this time . . . please outline his considerable “influence” on the 20th century. More or less than Madonna’s?

I would say that his work with the Beatles AND his solo efforts put together have had a million times more influence on the 20th Century than Madonna has.
Although the Material Girl is a good chameleon and a great comeback kid, it’s hard for me to believe she’s sincere about anything. She seems too good at working the media, nor do I find a great depth in much of her work. (Not that all Beatles’ songs are meaningful, but still…)
I equate Lennon/McCartney songwriting to be as influential as Gershwin, only in a different light.
Again, this is all IMHO.

Um, Give Peace a Chance was NOT his only song!

I’m thinking I am the Walrus, Julia, Girl, etc etc…

Right, nothing remarkable about espousing pacifism. Hell, look at the charts today, all you ever hear are more platitudes about loving your brother, right? Like fuck.You seem to want to put him down for this, and you can’t even start a simple opinion thread without sounding vitriolic. John Lennon was a completely different case from Madonna, Shitney, et al. The Beatles were damn near universally loved in their heyday; they were probably the last cultural force that the entire society agreed upon as a whole. These days everything’s more fragmented - name me one artist or entertainer beloved by critics, artists, scholars, teenyboppers and bohemians these days. This was the case with the Beatles. Even “establishment” musicians like Leonard Bernstein enjoyed them. Look at the diverse group of artists who covered their songs: from Otis Redding to Jimi Hendrix to Husker Du to Motley Crue. Whether you like it or not, John Lennon was hugely influential to a large segment of the population. And by the way, he took considerable shit for his pacifist stance and life with Yoko, most of it aired publicly from the friends/critics/fans that had earlier revered him, and he still stood by his beliefs (and his wife) and dealt cheerfully with the attacks, instead of telling everybody what pathetic jackasses they were being. Oh, right, it’s easy to turn your back on commercialism once you’ve racked up a personal fortune - that must be why so many others in the same situation do the same thing. Yeah, it’s great how Tom Cruise took 5 years off from making movies to be with his family.And ain’t it great how Limp Bizkit spend so much of their time and money working for a more peaceful society? Oh, and scratch1300, as a fan who doesn’t get stoned at all, I’ve gotta disagree with you (though not about the Grateful Dead & Phish, but then I don’t see how anyone could compare the Beatles/John Lennon to them in the first place). Then again, maybe I’m just naturally mush-headed. Yeah, God forbid anybody actually show signs of actually caring about something. In the new age, irony and sarcasm are the only emotions that count.

Madonna!? The only influence she had/has is the ruthlessness of her self-promotion. She’s a mediocre singer, a dreadful actress but a helluva media manipulator. Kinda pathetic in a way; she keeps re-inventing herself but she just doesn’t have much to offer besides hype and spin. Just about the only shock tactic she hasn’t tried is having a pelvic exam on stage.

Veb

It has no relevance, except that I’m sick of hearing sub-talents (such as yourself) say the actual mucho-talents are more non-talentish then the speaking sub-talent, as it were.

You don’t like John Lennon? No skin off of my balls, but to make a statement that he is a non-talent is ludicrous. Between his solo work and his work with the Beatles, he is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, influence on virtually everybody laying down tracks today - the above mentioned “recording artists” included.

By the way, tsuni-lad. I don’t do any drugs, and your little “go back to your reefer” comment is further evidence of you ignorance.

Didn’t say Lennon was a non-talent, old boy. What I said was that Brittany, Madonna, Ice, et al. are no talents and that, while Lennon’s songs may be good (i.e. "spirited), I can’t understand the hagiographic excess. As for your cheeky comments, Jack, why not give peace a chance?

KISS!!!

Well, I believe my first post in this thread did a fair job of explaining why some people admire John Lennon ferverently. Am I one of them? Not really. I do admire him, but I don’t pray to him or anything.

The only reason I got “cheeky” in the first place was because of the tone of the OP. I’m pretty sure I haven’t wounded your sensibilities to greivously, so I’ll let my comments stand.

Other than that, what exactly are we arguing about again?

Isn’t it funny the way people who claim to admire Lennon, who was apparently SO committed to peace, get so aggressive so easily?

As someone with no axe to grind, I’d say JL was one half of the greatest white popular songwriting team of the post-war era. No more, no less.

Great songwriter? Yep, if you like that sort of thing. One of the very best since the war, and undoubtedly he and Macca transformed the popular song landscape. But for my money neither of them could kiss the toes of a real master, such as Cole Porter.

Great singer? “Yes!” if you’re a committed fan, but “Not really” otherwise. According to George Martin, JL didn’t think much of his own voice.

Great musician? Well, he could certainly handle a guitar, had a good vocab of chords, and when he wanted to he could be fairly expressive. But in terms of his mastery or expressive playing of guitar or any other instrument, well, he was no Hendrix.

Great poet? Personal taste varies, and aesthetics is not a good subject for dogmatic assertion. But I’ve studied a lot of poetry, and what I’ve read of JL doesn’t really stack up against the competition. Put it this way, if you want to praise Lennon as a poet, fine, but there are a few other names it might be fair to rave about before you get down the list to JL.

Major influence? Yes, but here the fans tend to veer off into hyperbole heaven, while the rest of us tread a little lighter on the gas. I’m a Beatles fan, and their influence is obviously enormous. But I feel Jack Batty oversteps the mark as regards Lennon’s individual influence. People like Buddy Holly, Dylan, Elvis and Hendrix can probably be said to have had as much influence in their own way, irrespective of whether this influence is always acknowledged. Plus any number of names from the Tamla Motown story.

‘Influence’ can also be fun to answer from differing perspectives. After all, if you’re looking for one guy who single-handedly transformed popular music and has enjoyed a lasting influence, I’d say George Beauchamp and Les Paul have pretty damn good claims to first place! But then, you see, I’m so hooked on guitars I’m rather biased.

And finally… I side with those who find something rather incongruous about a man with his wealth singing “Imagine there’s no possessions…”, and being credited with some kind of saintly evangelical quality. A very good pop song, written by a very rich man.

I credit Lennon’s individual influence in regards to his participation in The Beatles. He was the driving force for the group in its early years. He was the predominant song-writer/singer in the early days. Once McCartey and Harrison started contributing more, his creativity took off.

As I said before, he and his group were at the forefront during widespread social upheaval. Their legend is set. There influence is undeniable.

As for Buddy Holly, Cole Porter, Les Paul et al, I never said they didn’t have any influence on anybody, Lennon himself professed admiration for Holly, Presley, Haley, Dylan and others. But, since The Beatles “changed” the face of popular music, for better or worse, they will be number one on any “Influences Tree” so to speak.

One other thing - I don’t delude myself. I know John Lennon, despite his “Peace” songs wasn’t the most easy-going guy in the world (at least from what I have read). He was probably more violent than I’ll ever be. When I get aggressive about anything, it is because thats the way I have decided to react. I don’t run anything through my Lennon-O-Meter. I don’t wear any WWJLD bracelets

Interesting how the major post-modern musical forces we are advancing are all white. How about Miles Davis and John Coltrane? Charlie Parker and Louis Armstrong? Chuck Berry? (Yes, all men.)

Jack’s right. John was a total smartass with one hell of a bad temper. The point was, in later years, he tried hard NOT to be aggressive and violent.

“And finally… I side with those who find something rather incongruous about a man with his wealth singing “Imagine there’s no possessions…”, and being credited with some kind of saintly evangelical quality. A very good pop song, written by a very rich man.”

Aaargh! Thank you, tsunamisurfer! It’s nice to know that I’m not the only person in the world that doesn’t understand the unquestioning love of the American public for the lyrics of post-Beatles John Lennon. I actually get nervous that, as Christmas approaches, I might accidentally hear that inane Christmas song of his. For years I figured the popularity of that song was due to the fumbling efforts of the Sinatra crowd to connect with their hippie-children…but to my dawning horror I’m discovering that people actually seem to like it! And the lyrics to Imagine are not anywhere close to “very good” IMHO. They seem vague and wishy-washy and stupid.

Not that, of course, that justifies shooting the guy or anything, ya unnerstand.